Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(58,823 posts)
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:23 AM Aug 2016

Swanky San Francisco high-rise sinking, tilting

A newly built high-rise residential tower in San Francisco that's home to famed 49ers' quarterback Joe Montana and Giants' outfielder Hunter Pence is slowly sinking and shifting, and may ignite a court battle between residents and the city.

The 58-story Millennium Tower, located at 301 Mission Street just south of the city's financial district, was completed in 2008 and has sunk 16 inches and shifted 2 inches to the northwest since opening, according to a report issued by an independent consultant obtained by KTVU-TV.

The owners of the $350 million building told KTVU the construction next door of the Transbay Transit Center, a $4.5 billion project to serve as a hub of mass transit, has caused the ground movements.

P.J. Johnston, spokesman for Millennium Partners, which built the tower, told KTVU in a written statement that the transit center has been a negative impact on the luxury high-rise.

"All buildings settle over time," the statement said. "However, 301 Mission exists in a location where major underground construction work was subsequently performed by others, who were obligated to monitor and protect existing structures, and to mitigate any impacts of their work. 301 Mission has settled more than originally anticipated because it was affected by such subsequent construction by others."

The Millennium Tower Association, the building's home owners association, told the television station it has hired its own group of consultants to try and figure out what's going on.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/01/swanky-san-francisco-high-rise-sinking-tilting.html

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Swanky San Francisco high-rise sinking, tilting (Original Post) RandySF Aug 2016 OP
the high-rise is made of concrete rather than steel, "resulting in a very heavy building. Liberal_in_LA Aug 2016 #1
So how on earth did the design and construction get approved????? kestrel91316 Aug 2016 #3
Lol that's a good question. RandySF Aug 2016 #4
the city doesn't review for settling - just life safety: seismic and gravity. maxsolomon Aug 2016 #13
The tower had already sunk 10" -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #19
i didn't catch that they didn't go to bedrock maxsolomon Aug 2016 #30
Isn't that ground going to turn to jelly in a quake? jberryhill Aug 2016 #28
Liquefaction. Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #31
How? Money. Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #18
Yeah, building on fault lines doesn't always work out so good either. underahedgerow Aug 2016 #2
I always assumed there were deep pilings and optimal-design quake-proofing in that building. NBachers Aug 2016 #5
SF has changed their building rules -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #17
It's one of the reasons I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan Xithras Aug 2016 #20
He helped torpedo the anti Air B&B measure in the last election cycle. NBachers Aug 2016 #21
But he is really out front on the issue that matters much more: Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #37
If I lose my place, and I can't get a new place to live, that is pretty personally serious to me. NBachers Aug 2016 #38
I agree. The same kind of political mentality suffuses Austin politics. Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #40
Can't stand Newsom -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #22
He's running for California Gov in 2018. Xithras Aug 2016 #29
What's wrong with CGI? Hollywood uses 'em all the time. Great fun! Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #36
"..result from developer cost-cutting by driving piles only 80 feet deep, and not 200 feet into Guy Whitey Corngood Aug 2016 #41
Chances are... 2naSalit Aug 2016 #6
I believe that part of SF is on landfill andym Aug 2016 #7
I believe so to. Refuse from at least the 1906 whistler162 Aug 2016 #9
That area was filled long before 1906 and burned horribly in the fire Brother Buzz Aug 2016 #24
Thanks for the correction. whistler162 Aug 2016 #39
It is sitting off the old San Francisco shoreline -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #16
Liquifaction is going to take out some of those buildings csziggy Aug 2016 #25
The Marina District is Jello Brother Buzz Aug 2016 #34
Didn't notice this was on a Fox site. The comments are irrelevant and vile. CurtEastPoint Aug 2016 #8
lordy that is like 2 inches a year dembotoz Aug 2016 #10
Be careful Hunter Pence! The Giants need you. panader0 Aug 2016 #11
They are trying to pin their incompetance -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #15
Not Fox News Link here: hunter Aug 2016 #12
As I watched that tower go up -- Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #14
Very troubling. lucca18 Aug 2016 #26
Bay Area real estate is very tricky. Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #32
I admit, I'm a bad person. Starry Messenger Aug 2016 #23
Psssst. Hell Hath No Fury Aug 2016 #33
Let's hope it doesn't fall over like that Chinese apartment building! csziggy Aug 2016 #27
Don't worry. The JQP Insurance Co. will handle all liability expenses. Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #35
 

Liberal_in_LA

(44,397 posts)
1. the high-rise is made of concrete rather than steel, "resulting in a very heavy building.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:31 AM
Aug 2016

The transit authority also said the high-rise is made of concrete rather than steel, "resulting in a very heavy building. This heavy structure rests on layers of soft, compressible soil. The foundation of the Tower, however, consists only of a concrete slab supported by short piles that fail to reach the bedrock below. That foundation is inadequate to prevent settlement of a building with the weight of the Tower."

maxsolomon

(33,345 posts)
13. the city doesn't review for settling - just life safety: seismic and gravity.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:41 PM
Aug 2016

this is on the structural engineers, the geotechs, and the general contractors.

BUT, if the transbay terminal removed some of the tower's lateral support, they could be on the hook, too. depends on the design sequence.

was the tower complete before design work on the terminal started? then the shoring design might be at fault.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
19. The tower had already sunk 10" --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:32 PM
Aug 2016

before any excavation on the terminal had even begun. And the engineers has said they expected a 4" settle for the LIFETIME OF THE BUILDING.

They fucked up by not going to bedrock, plan and simple.

maxsolomon

(33,345 posts)
30. i didn't catch that they didn't go to bedrock
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:44 PM
Aug 2016

that is dumb. but I don't think you can pin it on "the city", AKA the permit reviewers.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
28. Isn't that ground going to turn to jelly in a quake?
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:37 PM
Aug 2016

I'm no geologist, but I was under the impression that without support from bedrock, then a quake can turn that sediment into soup.
 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
31. Liquefaction.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:28 PM
Aug 2016

Huge parts of downtown SF are prone to it. On this map the red represents areas where liquefaction will occur due to fill (shoreline, rivers, marsh) -- the Millennium Tower is smack dab in the middle of red section that was old shoreline. I was here in '89 and saw first hand the results of liquefaction -- and that was from a big-but-not-BIG quake 73 miles away.


 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
18. How? Money.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:28 PM
Aug 2016

Plan and simple. SF has been in a new real estate Gold Rush -- that Tower was one of the first in a long line of uber-luxe buildings going in downtown..

NBachers

(17,108 posts)
5. I always assumed there were deep pilings and optimal-design quake-proofing in that building.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:43 AM
Aug 2016

I thought it was required in the design of all new construction, especially high-rises of that size.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
17. SF has changed their building rules --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:25 PM
Aug 2016
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/How-safe-are-rising-S-F-towers-in-wake-of-Napa-5714511.php

"More than a dozen towers are under construction or recently completed in downtown San Francisco, which is more than 30 miles from the epicenter of Sunday's 6.0 temblor. Almost all of them were designed using a process known as performance-based design.The system was approved in 2008 as an alternative to the city's building code for structures above 240 feet in height. Rather than follow a preordained checklist of requirements, engineers and architects can use computer simulations and technical modeling to make the case that their design will ride out a major earthquake at least as well as a tower designed under the old rules."

There is TREMENDOUS pressure to develop and develop fast here in SF these days. Our "democrats" have handed the City over to those who are making a killing here in luxury residential real estate. Everyone wants "loft" style housing with tall ceilings and floor to ceiling/wall to wall windows -- you can't get that esthetic with traditional steel building (and earthquake safe) techniques. As always, when there is big money to be made, certain things one would believe are unthinkable -- much as not tying into bedrock -- are.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
20. It's one of the reasons I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:54 PM
Aug 2016

I get that a lot of people love him because of his stances on social issues, but many overlook the fact that he's a pro-business, pro-development Democrat who often places economic interests before social or environmental problems. He was on the SF Board of Supes when many of the pro-developer regulations were being drafted, and was mayor when the laws were relaxed allowing buildings like this one to go up. He didn't just sign off on these changes, he was a vocal advocate of them. Remember, he was the same mayor who famously did the "100 in 100" thing, where he openly met with 100 different CEO's in 100 days to get their feedback on ways to remake San Francisco into a more corporate friendly city.

There's a lot to like about Gavin Newsom, but damn his business and development policies. The Millennium Tower is just one example of where his laissez faire, pro-corporate economic policies led us.

Sad thing is, the current round of city leaders isn't any better

NBachers

(17,108 posts)
21. He helped torpedo the anti Air B&B measure in the last election cycle.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:15 PM
Aug 2016

He was very active in campaigning against the measure that limited unscrupulous contractors from kicking out renters and turning the units into Air B&B Boutique rentals

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
22. Can't stand Newsom --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:16 PM
Aug 2016

wouldn't pee on him of he were on fire -- THAT'S how good my memory on Newsom is. Thrilled for my gay peeps on what was accomplished for them but a stake was driven into the heart of SF by that bastard. > I am proud to say he has never ONCE gotten my vote -- and never, ever will in the future. The Newsom kind of Corporatecat can go fuck themselves. Mightily.

Our current leaders are indeed a joke -- watch out for Farrell, he is a GOPer gunning for Mayor BIG TIME. I was recently at a Marina meeting with him and I heard hm trash talking Tom Ammiano and Mark Leno, and referring to them as being "on the other side of the aisle". Dude only ran as a "D" 'cause a GOPer can't get elected for SHIT in SF.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
29. He's running for California Gov in 2018.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:39 PM
Aug 2016

I'm genuinely hoping that Villaraigosa can mount an effective primary campaign against him. Given the demographic changes in the state and the nationwide push towards a more diverse Democratic leadership, there are a lot of us hoping to see Villaraigosa become California's first Hispanic governor in nearly 200 years. More importantly, he's just as liberal as Newsom on social issues and he has a greater focus on the needs of the working (and non-working) poor in this state.


As for the current SF leadership, just keep things in perspective. I moved from San Francisco to Modesto. You could have it waaaay worse

Guy Whitey Corngood

(26,501 posts)
41. "..result from developer cost-cutting by driving piles only 80 feet deep, and not 200 feet into
Wed Aug 3, 2016, 03:37 PM
Aug 2016

bedrock" according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco)

That's fucking insane.

2naSalit

(86,610 posts)
6. Chances are...
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:55 AM
Aug 2016

A certain presidential candidate had something to do with that.

That guy is the antithesis of having the Midas touch.

andym

(5,443 posts)
7. I believe that part of SF is on landfill
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:18 AM
Aug 2016

so its especially prone to settling (and to shaking during earthquakes).

 

whistler162

(11,155 posts)
9. I believe so to. Refuse from at least the 1906
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:00 AM
Aug 2016

quake. We really need someone who specializes in examining the ground buildingsa are going to be built on and weather conditions that might affect the building! Maybe a real cool title like earth and weather checker outer.<sarcasm>

Brother Buzz

(36,430 posts)
24. That area was filled long before 1906 and burned horribly in the fire
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:28 PM
Aug 2016

The site of the Millennium Tower was originally six feet of non navigable bay at high tide with a hard sand sediment bed that was most adequate for one, two story structures (liquefaction would be minimal compared to some of the city's deeper fill areas built on mud).

Area burned in 1906:

 

whistler162

(11,155 posts)
39. Thanks for the correction.
Wed Aug 3, 2016, 09:42 AM
Aug 2016

San Francisco and New York City have that in common. Just that the earthquakes in San Francisco tend to be a tad more extreme.

I live in Syracuse and the Southern shoreline of Onondaga lake is all built up swamp land. My brother(construction industry) refused to go into the mega mall(Carousel/Destiny) since it is built on the shoreline. That area is now getting built up even more.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
16. It is sitting off the old San Francisco shoreline --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:16 PM
Aug 2016

with was filled in with rubble from the quake and fire. So that huge building is sitting on a concrete slab situated on mud and rubble fill. (As they were excavating they found old ship remnants along with the quake rubble.) There IS bedrock there but they chose not to tie into it. In earthquake country. Mere miles from two MAJOR faults, both of which are overdue for a major rip. I'd call that gross negligence on the developers part, in my book.

csziggy

(34,136 posts)
25. Liquifaction is going to take out some of those buildings
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:33 PM
Aug 2016

I remember seeing maps of the landfill areas of SF after the 1989 earthquake but I don't remember exactly where those areas were.

According to Wikipedia, much of the landfill was in the Marina District (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_District,_San_Francisco) which seems to be north of the location for the Millennium Tower (at 301 Mission Street).

Brother Buzz

(36,430 posts)
34. The Marina District is Jello
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:49 PM
Aug 2016

They built a fine seawall across Marina Cove and dredged in mud to fill it. It is as much Jello today as it was when it was when it filled for the The Panama–Pacific International Exposition in 1915, and it will remain Jello unless they can drop the ocean level about twenty feet.

CurtEastPoint

(18,644 posts)
8. Didn't notice this was on a Fox site. The comments are irrelevant and vile.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 08:39 AM
Aug 2016

What is WRONG with these people?

dembotoz

(16,804 posts)
10. lordy that is like 2 inches a year
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:26 AM
Aug 2016

to say nothing about the structural safety about the building....it means redoing entrance access on a yearly basis or more often.

would imagine that water line sewer line and gas lines are not happy with this movement....i understand it is a luxury building, but holy condo fees bat man

panader0

(25,816 posts)
11. Be careful Hunter Pence! The Giants need you.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:36 AM
Aug 2016

I notice the statement mentions "subsequent construction by others".
CYA.
I worked on a large mechanical building that sank (partially) about 8".
They brought in a huge concrete pumper truck that pressure pumped
concrete into many holes drilled through the floor. It raised the building
back up and the Corps of Engineers passed it.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
15. They are trying to pin their incompetance --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:11 PM
Aug 2016

on adjacent construction -- the thing had already sunk 10" before any work had even begun. As you said, CYA plus an attempt to get the taxpayer to foot the bill for any repairs. Fuck'em.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
14. As I watched that tower go up --
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 01:09 PM
Aug 2016

I thought to myself there wasn't a chance in HELL I would even consider living there -- it was a disaster waiting to happen. Period. Just the area ALONE was problematic -- nothing but mud and old quake fill. But to find out it wasn't ANCHORED?! Fucking insane. And it got BUILT because SF has been run by developers and corrupt "democrats" for some time now.

Millennium Tower was one of the first super-luxe housing towers to go in here in SF, and it became a harbinger of the turn the City was going to take. That this symbol of obscene wealth and and privilege is sinking into the mud makes this San Franciscan, very, very happy.

lucca18

(1,241 posts)
26. Very troubling.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:34 PM
Aug 2016

I live in a one story home built on landfill in Marin County, and during the rainy season my backyard looks like a lake!

If I knew back then, what I know now, I would never have bought the house.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
32. Bay Area real estate is very tricky.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:35 PM
Aug 2016

Cities have filled/paved so many rivers, marshes, and shorelines that you really have to really research the geology of the area. I am in SF up on pure bedrock -- which makes me feel very safe, though climate change maps show me liviing on an island in around 150 years. Could be fun. So sorry to hear about the lake". That has to really suck.

csziggy

(34,136 posts)
27. Let's hope it doesn't fall over like that Chinese apartment building!
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 02:36 PM
Aug 2016

That one didn't even take an earthquake to tip over, just poor foundations and irresponsible building techniques: http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/410/Ever-see-a-12-story-building-just-fall-over.aspx

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Swanky San Francisco high...